Context:
In a significant development concerning marital freedom, privacy, and social justice, the Supreme Court (SC) has rejected the Union government’s plea to transfer a case challenging provisions of the Special Marriage Act (SMA), 1954 to itself. This decision allows the Delhi High Court (HC) to proceed with examining the constitutional validity of the mandatory public notice requirement under the Act.
Key Highlights:
Judicial Developments
-
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition filed by the Ministry of Law and Justice seeking transfer of the case from the Delhi HC.
-
The dismissal enables the Delhi HC to adjudicate on the constitutional challenge to Sections 6 and 7 of the SMA.
-
The case has been pending since 2020, filed by an interfaith couple.
Challenged Provisions of the SMA
-
Section 6: Mandates a 30-day public notice of intended marriage, inviting objections.
-
Section 7: Allows the Marriage Officer to inquire into objections, potentially halting the marriage.
-
These provisions apply only under the SMA, not under personal laws.
Arguments by the Petitioners
-
The mandatory public notice:
-
Enables familial and societal interference, especially in interfaith and inter-caste marriages.
-
Forces couples to opt for alternative or unsafe marriage routes.
-
-
Violates:
-
Right to privacy
-
Right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
-
-
Exposes couples to:
-
Harassment
-
Threats
-
Honour-based violence
-
Centre’s Arguments for Transfer
-
Cited the pendency of a similar petition (Nandini Praveen case) before the SC.
-
Argued that:
-
Conflicting HC and SC rulings could cause legal confusion.
-
Marriage officers may face administrative uncertainty.
-
Public resources could be wasted due to divergent interpretations.
-
Supreme Court’s Stand
-
The SC rejected the transfer plea, allowing the Delhi HC to continue hearing the matter.
-
Reinforces the principle that High Courts are competent to examine constitutional validity of statutes.
Relevant Prelims Points:
-
Issue: Constitutional challenge to public notice requirement under the SMA.
-
Key Law: Special Marriage Act, 1954.
-
Key Sections: Sections 6 and 7.
-
Rights Involved:
-
Right to Privacy
-
Right to Life and Liberty (Article 21)
-
-
Courts Involved:
-
Supreme Court
-
Delhi High Court
-
-
Impact:
-
Implications for interfaith and inter-caste marriages.
-
Relevant Mains Points:
-
Polity Dimension:
-
Judicial review of statutory provisions.
-
Role of High Courts in constitutional adjudication.
-
-
Social Justice Aspect:
-
Protection of couples exercising choice in marriage.
-
Addressing structural barriers to interfaith and inter-caste unions.
-
-
Constitutional Values:
-
Privacy as intrinsic to dignity and autonomy.
-
Balance between state regulation and individual freedom.
-
-
Way Forward:
-
Re-examine the necessity of mandatory public notice.
-
Introduce privacy-protective alternatives.
-
Harmonise marriage laws with evolving constitutional jurisprudence.
-
Ensure administrative clarity without compromising fundamental rights.
-
UPSC Relevance (GS-wise):
-
GS Paper II – Polity: Judicial review, constitutional validity, marriage laws.
-
GS Paper II – Social Justice: Interfaith marriages, individual autonomy.
-
Prelims: SMA, Sections 6 & 7, right to privacy, Article 21.